Cutting the Ethical Pie for Engaging ETI: An Adventure in Astro-Ethics

Through the eyes of the Kepler
Space Telescope, planet hunters have just spotted two Saturn-like transits
orbiting a single star. Might they have an Earth-sized companion? In addition,
a possible litter of seven planets has been detected orbiting a sun-like star,
HD 10180, only 127 light-years away (Grossman). The day of contact with
extraterrestrial intelligent life (ETI) may be tomorrow.

What shall we do when we meet
them? How shall we respond to contact with intelligent beings inhabiting
exoplanets? What shall we say when extraterrestrials ask us questions? How
shall we treat intelligent beings from another world? Despite all the Sci-Fi
movies weve seen, and despite what UFO aficionados tell us, we Earthlings just
may not be ready to engage ETI.

Thinking
ahead about our response to contact with ETI I call Astro-Ethics (or Astro-Bioethics). An ethicist theorizes about moral
behavior. Ethics is defined by the late Paul Ricoeur as thinking about living
well with and for others in just institutions (Ricoeur, 330). I put astro
in front of ethics so we can speculate about how to live well with alien
neighbors in just institutions.

ETI might be really other to us. They may be so different
that at first contact we might have to work hard just to discern whether
theyre living and whether theyre intelligent. Or,
maybe not. Maybe the laws of physics and laws of evolutionary biology are such
that alien intelligent beings--though the result of a 2nd genesis
somewhere else in space--resemble us enough that we can bridge the gap of
otherness. Let us work temporarily with this assumption: ETI, though other, still take a form that
reasonably resembles homo sapiens on
Earth.

With this first assumption in
mind, lets consider the alien community as a moral community - that is, as a
community with whom our relations can be understood in ethical terms. What are
the possibilities? I see three. One or more of the three following are
possible: we might engage (1) inferior
aliens: extraterrestrial biotic individuals who are inferior to us (less
evolved); (2) peer aliens: residents
of an exoplanet who may have followed a similar path in evolutionary
development and whose level of intelligence is comparable to our own; or (3) superior aliens: perhaps having evolved
over a longer period of time, higher in intelligence, more advanced in science
and technology, and better than we are in many identifiable respects. Here is
how we cut the ethical pie for engaging ETI.

Our second assumption will be this: when it comes to the
criterion by which we measure inferior, peer, and superior, it will be rational
intelligence. Why? Because most commentators on human enhancement who weigh in
on the future of humanity believe intelligence to rank among the highest of human
values (Harris, 2). Further, astrobiologists hypothesize that evolutionary
history has a built in entelechy that leads toward increased intelligence over
time (NASA). Cyber dynamo Ray Kurzweil provides an example of the prevalent
evaluation of evolved intelligence: The purpose of
the universe reflects the same purpose as our lives: to move toward greater
intelligence and knowledge (Kurzweil, 372). Has this assumption been proven? No. Cornell
exobiologist Carl Sagan recognizes that this belief structure is based on
speculation rather than sufficient empirical evidence to deem it scientific. I
would guess that the Universe is filled with beings far more intelligent, far
more advanced than we are. But, of course, I might be wrong. Such a conclusion
is at best based on a plausibility argument, derived from the numbers of
planets, the ubiquity of organic matter, the immense timescales available for
evolution, and so on. It is not a scientific demonstration (Sagan, 1994, 33). Still, despite its lack of scientific status, space
scientists largely assume that biological evolution over time leads to
increased intelligence. This belief that the evolution of life is aimed toward
enhancing rational intelligence is rife among astrobiologists; and intelligence
provides the criterion for measuring evolutionary advance. Of course, one could
imagine a different criterion. For example, one could imagine a criterion such
as altruistic love. We would then rank terrestrial as well as extraterrestrial civilizations
according to their lovingness. But, alas, no one I can find in this discussion
appeals to anything other than intelligence. So, intelligence is what well
speculate on here.

Now, cutting the pie into thirds - inferior,
peer, and superior--is not quite enough. Our ethical deliberations need in
addition to distinguish between an alien civilization that might be (a) hostile to us; (b) neutrally peaceful; or even (c) salvific - that is, helpful to the extent
of saving us from our own self-destructive habits. Our initial moral posture
should respond appropriately to the initial posture of our alien neighbors.

Hostile

Peaceful

Salvific

Inferior

X

Peer

X

X

Superior

X

X

X

Response on the part of us
Earthlings to contact with ETI is what were now asking about. So, the ethical
orientation here will build upon a sense of moral responsibility. As the
etymology of the Latin, respondere meaning to answer, suggests, responsibility
ethics answers questions raised by our changing situation (Jonsen).
Establishing a new relationship with extraterrestrials would prompt many
questions. And an ethic of responsibility would seek to spell out just how best
for earthlings to respond. Further, the idea of responsibility includes care,
care both for the health and welfare of planetary life on earth but also the
health and welfare of our new space neighbors. The conditions and imperatives
arising from the new situation will suggest forms or frameworks within which to
formulate our moral responsibilities.

What about non-intelligent life? What
about our response to the discovery of microbial life on Mars or the moons of
Saturn? Margaret Race and Richard Randolph have proposed four underlying principles
for developing an ethic appropriate to the discovery of non-intelligent life in
our universe: (1) cause no harm to Earth, its life, or its diverse ecosystems;
(2) respect the extraterrestrial ecosystem and do not substantively or
irreparably alter it (or its evolutionary trajectory); (3) follow proper
scientific procedures with honesty and integrity during all phases of
exploration; and (4) ensure international participation by all interested
parties (Race and Randolph, 2002; Race, 2007, p. 495). For the discussion that
follows, microbial life will be thought of as non-intelligent life. We will
focus here on various forms of life we deem to be intelligent.

Has anybody already thought about
responding to alien intelligence? Yes. SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)
Institute has already offered a statement: The
Declaration of Principles ConcerningActivities
Following the Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence. The thrust of
SETIs nine principles is to follow scientific best practices, seek independent
confirmation to establish credibility, and announce the discovery only after
consultation with international leadership (SETI, 1990; Randolph and Race,
2002). In what follows we will refine what SETI has already done by cutting
ETIs ethical pie into differing moral communities.

Do we have empirical knowledge
that ETI exist? No. No unambiguous signals from extraterrestrial intelligence
have been detected (Dick, 1:317). Yet, the search goes on. As the search goes
on, we will assume that someday, sooner or later, contact with alien
intelligence will occur. Can we get ethically ready?